SPEECH 


MR.  J.  COLLAMER,  OF  VERMONT, 


DffiilVERSB  IN  THE 

(  * 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 


o*r 


THE  COMSmniTIOHAL  VALIDITY  OF  THE  ACT  OF  MWW 

BEJtlTIRIJfG  T.X3 


ELECTION  OF  REPRESENTATIVES  TO  BE  BY  DISTRICTS, 


P'aaatrA.aY  8,  1344. 


WASHINGTON  : 

PREWTBH)  BY  0AX.E8  AND  SEATON. 

1844.. 


J 


SPEECH. 


JSSST** reported  by  the  Commi“ee  of  Ekctions>  “■* unde 

“C0"drti0n  °f  “  A"  act  fOT  the  apportionment  of  Repre 
25  m2  r  T  1  aCC°rding  ‘°  thc  Sixth  «“<■."  approved  Jun, 

Mr.  COLLAMER  remarked _ 

J*  ;SPEAMR  :  In  Ju[ie>  1842>  pursuance  of  the  Consti- 
tution,  Congress  passed  an  act  apportioning  the  Representa- 

2"  am°"g  the  Stat6S  aCCOrdin^  the  sixth  census,  Ini  in 

distrtetT  Th6?011  Pr,°Vided  ‘hat  th6y  Sh0uld  be  chosen  by 
districts.  That  passed  both  Houses  of  Congress,  and  was  an 

the0;:  t  y  ;he  prfent-  m  ,he  sta*-  ^zzi 

he  first  section  of  that  law,  but  four  have  disregarded  its  sec- 

“  ™“nco™Htutional’  **  **  House  is  now  called 
on  to  sustain  those  States  in  their  course. 

returns  and'6  “!•?  ^  Constitution> t0  "judge  of  the  election, 
authon-  f  m  aU?n  itS0Wn  mernbers;”  but  that  does  not 

law  made  '  °VerrUle  or  d^gacd  'he  Constitution,  or  the 
The  there°f>  defining  such  qualification. 

anh;;xr  70{  this  H 'use’ in  judgin^ of  the  eiecd°>4 

a  t,q  f  100  °f  lts  members,  is  the  same  power  and  duty 
a  ‘Hat  °f  ,a  C0Urt  in  the  decision  of  a  cause;  that  is,  to  be 
guided  and  governed  by  the  law,  not  to  overturn  or  disre- 

branch  "T  'ime’  “  °Ur  hist0ry’  when  a  si‘igle 

law  w,  h  k  LeS‘S,atUre  has  b«®n  called  on  to  pronounce  a 

nL  aw  m  r  reC61Ved  the  Sa“Cti0n  °f  a11  tha  departments 
law-makmg  power,  including  this  branch,  as  unconsti- 


Vc 


4 


tutional  and  Inoperative.  Such  a  question  may  have  arisen 
before  the  Executive,  but  more  frequently  before  the  Judiciary; 
but  that  this  power  should  be  exercised  by  one  branch  of  the 
Legislature,  and  that,  too,  in  a  case  where  their  decision  is 
final  and  conclusive,  is  new  and  momentous.  I  mention  this, 
not  because  I  consider  this  House  has  not  the  power  to  treat 
an  unconstitutional  act  as  void,  but  that,  in  the  delicate  busi¬ 
ness  of  so  doing,  we  should  proceed  with  the  utmost  caution, 
and  claim  no  infallibility ,  but  in  a  case  which  is  clear,  past 
all  reasonable  doubt.  We  should  have  even  a  greater  degree 
of  certainty,  if  possible,  than  the  Supreme  Court  require,  that 
we  may  stand  in  no  ambiguous  position  before  the  people.  It 
should  be  remembered  that  this  House  is  subject  to  political 
changes,  and  it  is  doubtful  policy  to  make  a  decision  now,  on 
party  grounds,  which  may  induce  a  mode  of  proceeding  in  the 
several  States,  which  will  leave  their  future  elections  in  doubt 
and  danger. 

The  several  States  of  this  Union  are  indeed  sovereign 
States,  within  the  proper  sphere  of  their  jurisdiction;  but  in  the 
relation  they  hold  to  the  General  Government,  and  in  all  that 
concerns  the  jurisdiction  of  this  General  Government,  the 
States  are  subordinate;  their  powers,  rights,  and  duties,  being 
limited  and  controlled  by  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution. 
The  States  do  not,  from  the  mere  fact  of  being  sovereign  States , 
have  any  right  to  choose  Representatives  to  this  Congress,  any 
more  than  to  send  members  to  the  Parliament  of  Great  Britain, 
or  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  in  France.  Texas,  Mexico,  are 
sovereign  States ,  but  that  gives  them  no  right  of  representa¬ 
tion  here.  The  only  right  to  elect  members  to  either  House 
of  Congress,  by  the  people  of  any  State,  is  what  is  given  by  the 
Constitution,  and  it  must  be  exercised  under  the  limitation  that 
prescribes. 

Much  is  constantly  said  about  rights ,  sovereign  rights .  It 
might  be  well,  occasionally,  to  recollect  that  every  right  im¬ 
plies  a  correlative  duty;,  and  ail  who  claim  their  rights  should 
perform  their  duties ,  The  rights  of  the  people  of  the  States 


to  elect  Representatives  to  Congress,  and  the  duties  to  be  re¬ 
garded  in  the  making  such  election,  must  be  all  determined 
by  the  Constitution. 

The  Representatives  having  been  apportioned  among  the 
States  by  Congress  agreeably  to  the  Constitution,  we  come  now 
to  look  for  the  mode  of  their  election.  The  provision  of  the 
Constitution  on  this  subject  is  as  follows  :  “  The  times,  places, 
and  manner  of  holding  elections  for  Senators  and  Representa¬ 
tives,  shall  be  prescribed  in  each  State  by  the  Legislature 
thereof;  but  the  Congress  may  at  any  time  by  law  make  or 
alter  such  regulations,  except  as  to  the  places  of  chotfsing  Sen¬ 
ators.”  Something  has  been  said  in  relation  to  the  terms  shall 
and  may ,  in  this  provision  of  the  Constitution,  as  if  shall  was 
used  to  confer  more  power  on  the  State  Legislature  than  may 
conferred  on  Congress.  If  the  occasion  on  which  this  was 
drawn  is  considered,  it  will  fully  explain  the  use  of  those  terms. 
The  Convention  was  forming  the  Constitution  ;  it  was  provid¬ 
ing  for  the  creation  of  a  Congress  of  new  model.  The  Con¬ 
vention  could  not,  in  the  Constitution,  provide  all  the  particu¬ 
lars  for  a  first  election,  and  there  was  no  Congress  to  do  it  until 
one  was  first  chosen.  The  only  possible  mode,  therefore,  was 
to  direct  the  States  first  to  make  the  regulations,  so  that  a 
Congress  could  be  elected,  and  then  to  subject  these  regula¬ 
tions  to  the  direction  and  supervision  of  Congress  for  all  after 
time,  by  the  grant  of  the  subsequent  power  to  them.  To  test 
this  matter,  and  ascertain  whether  such  was  the  use  of  these 
terms,  let  us  transpose  these  words,  and  then  the  sentence 
would  have  run  thus  :  The  time,  place,  and  manner  of  holding 
elections  may  be  prescribed  in  each  State  by  the  Legislature 
thereof,  but  Congress  shall  at  any  time,  by  law,  make  or. alter 
such  regulations.  Is  it  not  apparent  that  such  a  sentence 
would  be  utterly  inconsistent  with  what  must  then  have  been 
desired  ?  it  would  have  made  it  the  duty  of  nobody  to  pro¬ 
vide  for  the  first  election,  and  made  it  imperative  on  Congress 
to  alter  or  make  regulations,  even  if  the  States  had  made  such 
as  were  entirely  satisfactory. 


6 


It  has  been  suggested  that  several  States — that  is,  seven — 
proposed  that  the  Constitution  should  be  so  altered  that  Con¬ 
gress  should  only  exercise  this  power  when  a  State  entirely 
neglected  to  make  the  provisions.  It  is  true  such  amend¬ 
ments  were  proposed,  and  were  not  adopted  ;  and  that  clearly 
shows  two  things  :  first,  that  it  was  then  distinctly  understood 
that  the  Constitution  gave  the  power  to  Congress  to  interfere 
with  the  mode  of  elections,  even  where  the  States  had  made  reg¬ 
ulations  on  the  subject ;  and,  second,  that  it  was  thought  ad¬ 
visable  to  retain  that  power  in  Congress  ;  and,  therefore,  the 
proposed^imendments  were  rejected. 

What,  then,  is  the  power  of  Congress  over  this  matter? 
I  answer,  it  is  precisely  the  same  as  that  of  the  States.  The 
power  to  prescribe  the  regulations  by  the  one,  and  the  power 
to  make,  and  altei'  such  regulations  by  the  other,  have  the 
same  latitude  and  the  same  limitation  ;  but,  by  the  very 
terms  of  the  proposition,  the  power  of  Congress  is  ultimate 
and  paramount.  This  clause  of  the  Constitution  must  re¬ 
ceive  a  practical  construction,  and  not  be  rendered  preposter¬ 
ous  and  unmeaning  by  refinements  and  distinctions  incapable 
of  practical  application.  The  substance  of  the  provision  is, 
that  the  States  shall  regulate  the  mode  of  the  election,  sub¬ 
ject  to  the  supervision  and  control  of  Congress.  As  far  as 
Congress  thinks  proper  to  make  regulations,  its  authority  is 
paramount  and  binding  on  all,  and  the  States  are  bound  to 
complete  the  regulations,  consistently  with  those  made  by 
Congress.  The  times ,  places ,  and  manner  of  holding  elec’ 
tions,  are  but  the  elements — the  ingredients  in  the  composi¬ 
tion  of  regulations.  They,  together,  mean  the  mode  of  elec¬ 
tion,  and  are  intended  to  mean  the  whole,  including  all  things 
that  make  it.  It  is  utterly  impossible,  practically,  to  separate 
these  elements,  and  regulate  one,  without  in  some  measure 
directing  as  to  the  other.  They  are  like  the  form^color ,  and 
material  of  a  thing — neither  can  exist  alone. 

It  is  now  very  fully  conceded,  both  by  the  speakers  and 
the  report  of  the  committee,  that  Congress  possesses  the  power 


7 


to  make  the  regulations  as  to  the  mode  of  the  election  in  all 
particulars,  provided  that  such  regulations  are  so  entire  as  to 
require  no  action  by  the  State  Legislature.  The  majority  re¬ 
port  goes  so  far  as  to  allow  that  Congress  might  make  regu¬ 
lations  either  as  to  time,  place ,  or  manner ,  but  its  regulations 
must  be  perfect  and  complete  on  that  subject.  It  is  difficult 
to  see  how  this  concession  and  these  distinctions  can  be  made, 
consistently  with  the  principle  on  which  the  report  is  under¬ 
stood  to  go — that  is,  that  Congress  can  do  nothing  which  re¬ 
quires  legislation  by  the  .  State,  or  which  gives  direction  to 
such  legislation.  But  how  can  Congress  settle  the  .  time  of 
election,  without  requiring  all  the  State  Legislatures  to  make 
laws  to  direct  the  elections,  and  regulate  the  duties  of  the 
officers  who  attend  them  to  conduct  accordingly  ?  Or,  sup¬ 
pose  that  Congress  should  regulate  the  place  or  places  of 
election — say  to  be  at  each  court-house,  town-house,  and  pa¬ 
rish  church — would  not  all  the  laws  of  States  require  to  be 
altered  accordingly  ?  It  is  utterly  impracticable  to  make  any 
such  distinction,  and  preserve  the  principle. 

All  this  is,  however,  of  little  importance.  The  great  point 
still  remains,  and  it  is  this  :  It  is  insisted  that  Congress  can 
never,  constitutionally,  legislate  on  any  subject  in  such  a  man¬ 
ner  as  to  require  action  by  a  State  Legislature ;  that  all  acts 
of  Congress  must  operate  on  the  people  propria  vigore ,  by 
their  own  force,  and  not  through  State  legislation ;  and  there¬ 
fore  it  can  never  be  the  duty  of  a  State  Legislature  to  regard 
or  perfect  any  such  measure.  This  is  laid  down  as  a  principle 
in  our  Government,  founded  on  the  reason  that  State  Legisla¬ 
tures  are  not  the  subjects  or  agents  of  Congress,  and  it  is  in¬ 
sisted  that  such  has  been  the  uniform  practice  in  our  Govern¬ 
ment.  This  brings  the  question  to  a  very  narrow  point,  and, 
in  considering  it,  I  will  state  some  general  principles,  which, 
if  sustained,  will  settle  it. 

.When  a  power  exists  in  the  General  Government,  and  the 
same  exists  in  the  State  Government,  each  may  exercise  the 
same,  for  its  own  purposes.  For  instance :  Congress  may 


8 


raise  a  direct  tax,  and  so  may  a  State  ;  but,  in  such  case,  each 
must  be  for  its  own  use,  and  each  must  act  independent  of 
the  other.  If  a  power  is  granted  to  Congress,  that  does  not 
deprive  the  State  of  the  exercise  of  that  power,  unless  for¬ 
bidden  by  the  Constitution  ;  and  the  exercise  of  the  power  by 
Congress  only  suspends  the  power  of  the  State  to  do  any  act 
inconsistent  with  what  Congress  has  done. — (Sturgis  vs.  Crown- 
inshield,  4  Wheaton,  122.)  Such  is  the  case  of  bankrupt  laws, 
put  in  the  majority  report. — (12  Wheaton,  213.) 

There  is  another  entire  class  of  cases  in  the  Constitution.  I 
speak  of  that  class  where  there  is  granted  a  power  to  the 
States,  to  be  exercised  under  the  direction,  supervision,  or 
control  of  Congress.  There  are  several  such  grants  of  pow¬ 
er  in  the  Constitution,  in  various  forms  of  expression.  It  has 
been  correctly  decided  by  the  Supreme  Court  that  a  State  can¬ 
not  obtain  legislative  power  from  Congress. — (9  Wheaton 
207.)  But,  in  relation  to  this  class  of  cases,  the  State  derives 
its  power  from  the  Constitution ;  but  the  authority  of  Congress 
is  paramount,  and,  so  far  as  it  goes,  is  imperative  ;  and,  in  the 
exercise  of  this  power,  Congress  has  often  and  early,  both  im¬ 
pliedly  and  directly  and  explicitly,  required  legislative  action 
by  the  State  Legislatures,  and  without  which  the  action  of 
Congress  would  have  been  incomplete  and  inoperative  in  its 
purpose. 

All  power  exercised  by  a  State  Legislature,  lor  the  State,  as 
a  sovereign  State,  is  exclusively  derived  from  the  State  Consti¬ 
tution.  If  it  comes  from  any  other  quarter,  it  is  not  a  power 
given  by  the  State,  and  in  its  exercise  the  State  Legislature  is 
not  the  agent  of  the  State,  but  the  agent  of  those  who  granted 
the  power.  In  the  exercise  of  all  powers  granted  to  a  Legis¬ 
lature,  in  a  State  Constitution,  it  is  sovereign,  and  cannot  be 
guided,  controlled,  checked,  or  directed,  by  Congress,  unless 
some  limitation  arises  from  the  United  States  Constitution. 

So,  too,  the  powers  granted  by  the  United  States  Constitu¬ 
tion  to  Congress,  where  nothing  is  said  or  clearly  implied  about 
State  Legislatures,  are  to  be  exercised  by  Congress  ;  and  State 


9 


Legislatures  cannot  direct  Congress  in  such  action,  nor  can 
Congress  make  the  State  Legislatures  their  agent,  either  in 
whole  or  in  part,  to  perform  such  service.  Hence,  it  has  been 
holden  that  a  State  cannot  derive  power  of  legislation  from 
Congress.  Hence,  Congress  cannot  make  agents  of  State  of¬ 
ficers,  or  create  any  duty  which  they  would  be  bound  to  dis¬ 
charge,  as  they  are  not  amenable  to  Congress. 

But  when  a  power  is,  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  conferred  on  a  State  Legislature,  subject  to  the  action 
of  Congress,  there  the  State  Legislature  does  not  act  as  the 
agent  and  Legislature  of  its  State,  deriving/rom  and  exercis¬ 
ing  its  power  for  the  State  under  their  Constitution,  but  as  the 
agent  of  the  United  States;  and,  by  the  very  terms  of  the 
grant,  it  becomes  subject  to  the  supervision  and  control  of 
Congress,  and  to  which  control  it  should  cheerfully  submit. 

Now,  look  through  all  the  State  Constitutions  in  the  Union, 
and  from  which  solely  the  Legislatures  derive  their  sovereign 
power,  and  you  will  look  in  vain  for  any  power  to  make  any 
law  regulating  the  appointing  Representatives  to  Congress, 
any  more  than  to  appoint  foreign  ministers.  Such  a  power, 
then,  they  do  not  possess  as  the  Legislature  of  a  sovereign 
State.  It  is  not  derived  from  the  State,  but  from  the  United 
States  Constitution,  and  by  that  to  be  exercised  under  the  di¬ 
rection  and  control  of  Congress. 

Let  us  now  inquire,  what  has  been  the  action  of  the  respect¬ 
ive  Governments  in  relation  to  this  class  of  cases.  In  the 
enumeration  of  the  powers  of  Congress,  the  Constitution  says 
that  Congress  shall  have  power  “  to  provide  for  organizing, 
arming,  and  disciplining  the  militia,  and  governing  such  part 
of  them  as  may  be  employed  in  the  service  of  the  United 
States,  reserving  to  the  States,  respectively,  the  appointment 
of  the  officers,  and  the  authority  of  training  the  militia  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  discipline  prescribed  by  Congress.”  The  mili¬ 
tia  could  not  be  trained  and  officered  unless  organized  and 
armed,  and  therefore  the  whole  provision,  taken  together,  is,  in 
substance,  that  the  militia  is  under  the  control  of  the  State, 


10 


subject  to  the  paramount  direction  of  Congress,  except  as  t< 
its  government,  then  only  when  in  United  States  service.  Ii 
relation  to  arming  the  militia,  Congress  in  1808  passed  an  ac 
entitled  “  An  act  making  provision  for  arming  and  equipping 
the  whole  body  of  the  militia  of  the  United  States.”  Th< 
first  section  of  that  act  provides  “  that  the  annual  sum  of  tw< 
hundred  thousand  dollars  be,  and  hereby  is,  appropriated  fo 
the  purpose  of  providing  arms  and  military  equipments  fo 
the  whole  body  of  the  militia  of  the  United  States,  either  bj 
purchase  or  manufacture,  by  and  on  account  of  the  Unite( 
States.”  Thus  far,  no  provision  existed  by  which  a  single 
musket  would  ever  reach  the  militia ;  and  did  Congress,  b) 
law,  provide  any  method  by  which  this  could  be  done  withou 
the  aid  of  State  legislation,  or  any  law  of  their  own  which,  ii 
itself ,  would  effect  it  ?  They  might  so  have  done  by  appoint 
ing  agents  for,  and  directed  a  mode  of  distribution  ;  but  the} 
proceeded  otherwise.  By  the  third  section  of  that  act  it  is 
provided  “that  all  the  arms  procured  in  virtue  of  this  act  shal. 
be  transmitted  to  the  several  States  composing  this  Union  and 
the  Territories  thereof,  to  each  State  and  Territory,  respect¬ 
ively,  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  the  effective  militia  ir 
each  State  and  Territory,  and  by  each  State  and  Territory  to  be 
distributed  to  the  militia ,  under  such  rules  and  regulations 
as  shall  be  by  law  prescribed  by  the  Legislature  of  each 
State  and  Territory.”  Here,  then,  was  a  most  clear,  expli¬ 
cit,  and  direct  expression  of  the  will  of  Congress,  mandatory 
on  the  States,  to  perfect,  and  by  legislation  to  carry  out  the 
purpose  of  Congress,  in  relation  to  a  subject  which  the  Con¬ 
stitution  had  intrusted  to  the  two.  Was  this  treated  as  a 
usurpation,  and  the  last  section  void ,  and  the  whole  but  an 
abortion?  No,  sir;  the  States  all,  with  great  propriety, 
submitted,  and  performed  their  duty,  and  all  proceeded  in  har¬ 
mony. 

Under  this  same  clause  of  the  Constitution,  as  to  the  militia, 
on  the  subject  of  organization ,  Congress  took  early  action. 
In  1792  Congress  passed  an  act  entitled  “  An  act  more  effectu- 


11 


r  to  provide  for  the  national  defence,  by  establishing  a  uni- 
n  militia  throughout  the  United.  States.”  Now,  sir,  did 
y  proceed  to  lay  off  the  United  States  into  divisions,  bri- 
les,  regiments,  and  companies,  or  describe  any  territory  to 
ipose  their  beats  ?  Did  they  make  a  law  which,  by  its  own 
;e,  without  the  action  of  State  Legislatures,  would  produce 
organization,  as  they  might  have  done  ?  No,  sir ;  they  pur- 
d  an  entirely  different  course,  and  that,  too,  by  a  Congress  in 
possession  of  the  knowledge  of  all  the  limitations  of  their  ne  w- 
reated  powers.  In  the  first  two  sections  of  that  act  they  define 
it  citizens  shall  compose  the  militia,  and  who  shall  be  the 
mpt,  how  the  militia  .shall  be  armed  and  enrolled.  In  the 
d  section  it  is  enacted  and  commanded  “  that,  within  one 
f  after  the  passing  of  this  act,  the  militia  of  the  respective 
:es  shall  be  arranged  into  divisions ,  brigades ,  regiments , 

'  companies ,  as  the  Legislature  of  each  State  shall 
ect  ;  and  each  division ,  brigade ,  and  regiment ,  shall  be 
tiered  at  the  formation  thereof”  and  then  going  on  giving 
licit  directions  for  the  Legislature  to  follow.  How  can  the 
;lish  language  frame  a  more  clear  and  definitive  expression 
landatory  language  from  one  body  to  another,  to  proceed 
erfect  and  carry  out  its  will ;  and  that,  too,  by  legislation, 
lout  which  the  object  would  utterly  fail?  .  And  how  was 
treated  in  those  virtuous  and  palmy  days  of  our  Republic  ? 
the  States,  or  any  one  of  them,  fly  in  the  face  of  Congress, 
contemn  their  direction,  and  treat  their  law  as  a  usurpa- 
or  an  abortion  ?  Did  they  talk  about  their  sovereign 
its,  and  tell  Congress  to  perform  their  own  drudgery  ?  No, 
no.  They  better  understood  the  respective  rights  of  all, 
possessed  at  the  same  time  the  virtue  of  obedience  to  du- 
No  madness  of  party  had  then  been  engendered,  which 
ild  have  given  countenance  to  insubordination  to  any  thing, 
ely  because  that  party  disliked  it.  No,  sir  ;  all  the  State 
islatures  proceeded  to  act  as  directed,  and  all  proceeded  in 
nony. 


12 


I  call  attention  now  to  another  one  of  that  class  of  ca 
where  a  power  is  granted  to  the  State  Legislatures  by 
United  States  Constitution,  subject  to  Congressional  cont 
The  Constitution  provides  that  each  State  shall  appoint  el 
ors  of  President  and  Vice  President,  “  in  such  manner  as 
Legislature  shall  direct ;”  but  as  to  the  time  of  choosing 
electors,  and  time  of  their  voting,  the  Legislatures  are  subj 
to  the  direction  of  Congr.ess,  as  the  Constitution  provides  t 
“  the  Congress  may  deterrhine  the  time  of  choosing  the  eh 
ors,  and  the  day  on  which  they  shall  give  their  votes,  wh 
day  shall  be  the  same  throughout  the  United  States.”  Nc 
according  to  the  argument  of  the  majority  of  the  commiti 
Congress,  having  power  over  the  time  of  electing  the  elect* 
and  the  time  of  their  voting,  must,  if  they  exercise  such  po\ 
on  either  of  those  times,  make  an  entire  exercise,  and  fix  si 
of  said  respective  times,  on  which  they  act  with  certainty,  i 
not  leave  any  thing  for  the  action  of  the  State  Legislature  to 
on  that  point.  How  did  Congress  act?  In  1792  they  pas 
an  act  entitled  “  An  act  relative  to  the  election  of  President  i 
Vice  President  of  the  United  States,  and  declaring  the  offi 
who  shall  act  as  President  in  case  of  vacancy  in  both  the  ( 
ces  of  President  and  Vice  President.”  In  the  first  section 
that  act  it  is  provided  that  “  electors  shall  be  appointed,  in  e 
State,  for  the  election  of  President  and  Vice  President  of 
United  States,  within  thirty -four  days  preceding  the  first  W 
nesday  in  December,”  &c.  Now,  could  any  citizen  in 
United  States  tell,  by  this  act,  what  day  he  was  to  vote 
electors  ?  Did  il  contain,  by  its  own  force,  power  to  act  on 
citizens  ?  Most  clearly  not.  It  was  therefore  nothing  m 
or  less  than  a  direction  to  the  State  Legislatures  to  proceed  { 
legislate  as  to  the  day  of  choosing  electors,  and  limiting  to  th 
the  time  beyond  which  they  should  not  go.  Was  this  e 
considered  as  unauthorized,  inoperative,  or  void  ?  No,  { 
every  State  in  the  Union  has  proceeded  by  its  direction, 
legislated  accordingly. 

Many,  very  many,  other  cases  could  be  brought  forw; 


13 


are  Congress  have  expressly  or  impliedly  given  direction  to 
States  as  to  the  manner  in  which  they  were  to  exercise 
se  powers  which  they  hold,  under  the  Constitution,  subject 
Congressional  control ;  and  in  all  such  cases  the  States  have 
arded  such  direction,  and  legislated  accordingly.  It  is  a 
ver  which  has  been  long  exercised  in  this  manner,  and 
er  disputed  until  the  present  occasion, 
dy  habits  of  life  have  forcibly  led  me  to  value  a  Govem- 
it  of  law,  and  the  virtue  of  subordination  and  obedience ,  as 
11  as  the  value  of  rights.  Rights  can  have  no  existence  but 
obedience  to  duties.  I  have,  in  an  humble  manner,  so  long 
listered  at  the  altar  of  the  law,  that  I  cannot  but  still  hope 
see  it  preserved  from  desecration,  and  especially  in  this 
11.  I  cannot  but  yet  hope  this  House  will  not  give  counte- 
lce  or  encouragement  to  the  spirit  of  insubordination,  but 
1  require  submission  to  the  laws  as  the  only  condition  on 
ich  either  States  or  individuals  can  be  entitled  to  claim  their 
its. 


■ 

. 

' 

Sg* 1  it. 

. 

. 


/ 


■  *  1 
•  v4 


